Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> wrote on 16.07.2007 18:04:26:> Do you have any data on how well this round-robin assignment works?> It seems not quite right to me for the driver to advertise nr_eqs> completion vectors, but then if round-robin is turned on to ignore the> consumer's decision about which vector to use.No, I've no figures to provide here. The background of this dist_eqsoption is actually to allow us testing across all event queueswithout to change the testcases resp consumers to use certainevent queue number. Thus, I should comment it as EXPERIMENTAL?> Maybe if round-robin is turned on you should report 0 as the number of> completion vectors? Or maybe we should allow well-known values for> the completion vector passed to ib_create_cq to allow consumers to> specify a policy (like round robin) instead of a particular vector?> Maybe the whole interface is broken and we should only be exposing> policies to consumers instead of the specific vector?Agree in that device driver should not overwrite consumer's policyof event queue assigment. Since dist_eqs is disabled as default,there's no issue, isn't it?Regarding ib_verbs: perhaps we should provide create/destroy_eq()and let upper level protocols or consumers dictate the assignmentto cq by passing an event queue pointer to create_cq()...> I think I would rather hold off on multiple EQs for this merge window> and plan on having something really solid and thought-out for 2.6.24.Fair enough. However why don't let us gather experience with thisfeature now? Should we remove dist_eqs option for more consistency?ThanksNam